orchidsfandomcom-20200215-history
User talk:Cs california
Hi Cs california -- we are excited to have Orchids Wiki as part of the Wikia community! Starting a new wiki can be overwhelming, but don't worry, the Wikia Community Team is here to help! We have put together a few guides to getting started. They say imitation is the best form of flattery so absolutely check out other wikis on Wikia for ideas on layout, ways to organize your content, etc. We are all one big family at Wikia and the most important thing is to have fun! * Our guide to Getting Started gives you 5 things you can do right now to set your wiki up for success * We also put together some Advice On Starting a Wiki which provides a more a in-depth look at some of the important things you should consider when building a wiki * If you are new to wikis in general than we recommend checking our new user FAQ If you need help (which trust me we ALL do) you can access our full in-depth help at Help Wikia, or email us through our . Also, you can visit our live #wikia chat channel any time. A lot of the veteran "Wikians" hang out here so its a good place if come if you want to get some advice or simply make friends. Now, go edit! We look forward to seeing this project thrive! Best wishes, Catherine Munro Images from Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons Read this. Useful wikia tools *http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Wiki_configuration#Customising_the_visual_theme P Hi, I would like to kno who has given permission to use some on my photoghas in this web page. My pictures are all COPYRIGHT protected. Could you please make sure you modify this? Juan Sanchez :Which ones are yours? please post links. Because search+yourname came up with nothing--Cs california 17:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC) ::I found it Orchis militaris right? I deleted it. CHECK your flickr account it was automatically obtained when using with the key words orchid because it was tagged with the creative commons license. We have stoped using Import free images and are replacing them with images tagged with cc or rights because of the problem you stated. I replace it but forgot to clear the file! Tell me if you see anymore --Cs california 18:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Spotlight Hi! I'm Wendy, a helper with the Entertainment group. I saw your request for a spotlight. You have an done an incredible job here in just a few months! We would be more than happy to spotlight your wiki. Please remember to keep welcoming your new contributors when they show up - it looks like you've been doing ok with that so far :). You may have noticed that I made a couple of small edits. The Mediawiki:Autosumm-new I changed to just put "new" in recent changes for new pages, rather than summarizing the content; it helps make things much less cluttered. And I edited Mediawiki:Pagetitle to make a simpler header for your pages, which helps search engines find you. It may take a couple of weeks for us to get the spotlight up so please be patient, but I have put you on the list :). Meanwhile, if you can think of other places to advertise your wiki, that's a good way to get contributors also! -- Wendy (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC) :One other thing -- I wondered if you'd seen the new Monaco skins yet? I think this wiki would look great in them. :) -- Wendy (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC) ::I have not seen many of the other skins as I use monobook. Thanks for you MediaWiki edits. I would do it if I knew css--Cs california 19:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC) :::I don't know much css myself; just a few select tricks :). Would you mind setting the default skin for this wiki to Monaco-sapphire instead of Quartz since you aren't using it anyhow? I'd be happy to customize the menus to match the existing ones, or you can (MediaWiki:Monaco-sidebar). -- Wendy (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC) Just so you know, the spotlight is ready to go up, and you should start seeing it soon! -- Wendy (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Site critisism Hi Cs_california, Did you see the people on orchid geeks http://www.orchidgeeks.com/forum/orchid-care-cultivation/6265-anybody-use-wikipedia.html critize this wiki? I think you should ban them because they are misleading people by saying the site is useless (which I think is absurd since the site is awsome). A user Epiphyte said this on the forums :I'm hardly interested in contributing specific data such as latitude range, temperature range, etc if the data is just going to be generalized but we'll see how flexible the admin is. But obviously, if there is an article on an orchid with missing temperature data then specifying whether it is cool, intermediate or warm growing is better than nothing. The admin with user name kmarh also commented that the wiki is not reliable since people are limited on their culture experience. See below: :The bottom line is that there are other much more reliable and authoritative sources for information. For this reason I rarely use Wikipedia or other Wiki sites for orchid information and usually refer people to other sources, at least until the quality of information on these sites gets better. I'm not saying the posters are being malicious or are intentionally posting incorrect info, I'm just saying their posts are often limited to whatever knowledge they have on hand which may be incomplete or inaccurate. I am sure you are aware that that they claim the word "Cambria" was not a grex on a hybrid cross. Which is ironic since it was an actual cross since I saw that you found it on the kew site. I took a longer look at it and found errors. The page on Vuylstekeara was pretty messed up with its repeated use of the term "Cambria" as if it were a grex. "Cambria" is not a grex, it's a horticultural term used apparently only in Britain that generally refers to Oncidium Alliance intergeneric hybrids. It's a bit like saying "phal-type dendrobiums" but in the Wiki article it is treated as if it were a grex. This is why these types of sites are problematic. Maybe at some point in the future they'll get the factual bugs worked out. Then they'll be a good convenient resource. I dont think these individual would be useful so might as well revert their work. :'To be clear, content wise....there's no arguing that this orchid wikia website is currently a less than useful resource. :None of us are really orchid "experts". But, most of us have access to at least a couple books written by experts. What wikia would allow us to do would be to pool together the facts from our books to create a significant body of orchid knowledge. You know how your local orchid society has such a great library? Well, think of it as creating a virtual orchid society library...except, it would be an orchid forum library. I do not agree with their comment as I had some help with the photos you guys provided to ID my plants which was very helpful and the format is also great. So I think these guys are either very smug or trying to derail the progress you made so I just want to let you know.--67.159.44.138 02:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC) ::Well I did say on the policy that you just must follow the format and of course the wiki is general at first but anyone can edit it to make it more specific. The are allowed to make stuff more specific as long as they follow the format for consistency. As for their other format they should have requested that when we had lesser pages so the best format can be discuss. I think it is ironic that the admin said that The bottom line is that there are other much more reliable and authoritative sources for information. and yet he made a mistake and owned themselves. I find it ironic how many contradictory statements they made but I am not going to ban users for simply being ignorant or butthurt about edits. As for the info available I think I have enough experts trolling the site to have decent info given to me from a global perspective. Also I have a whole library of info since I am in charge of a Orchid society library. Although not everyone who contributes is a user of the site, they do tell me to correct mistakes. --Cs california 03:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC) :::Well anyways are you going to revert that guys edits since it seems like he is not an active user or at least change some of it?--67.159.44.138 03:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC) :::::Hmmm thats a good idea to change it if there are flaws but I think it would be good if I make priorities of finishing having a page on each genus and species before dealing with minor stuff like that. By the way, I just created the Vuylstekeara page today just so they wont be confused--Cs california 03:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Speaking of criticism...User 67.159.44.138 (who is using an IP address that's blocked on Wikipedia) forgot to mention the criticism on the MySpace Orchid Group. Heh, "butthurt about edits"? Very nice. Mature as well. It was actually my brain that hurt when I was trying to figure out why somebody would go from specific to general...especially when the general wasn't even accurate. My apologies for not suggesting my format when there were less pages. I must have missed the memo...and oh wait...relatively speaking, 1000 pages is considerably less pages than the 100,000+ pages required for all the species, varieties, subspecies, clones and hybrids. I was considering discussing the pros and cons of various formats when there were more contributors...but for some strange reason I think that it might be a while. So I'll throw some stuff out there to consider while all the contributors, errr...you...charge ahead creating new pages. That's great that you are in charge of your orchid society's library. Have you noticed that some books are easier to reference than others? Books that compartmentalize topics are considerably easier to reference than books that jumble everything together and force you to skim through several paragraphs in order to find topical information. The gold standard are the books written by the Bakers. Their books offer nicely organized facts and data. Here is a sample format, Coelogyne pandurata, from their Orchid Culture website. Perhaps it's not a perfect format but I've yet to find an orchid book or website with a better format. Right now you are using a very basic format and no matter what, you're going to have go back through and add sections to the pages you already created. For example, you neglected to include a section for references. Without a references section people will guess that you are basing the information on your personal growing experience or are just copying the information from Wikipedia. Given that you have access to an orchid society library I figure neither is the case... right? Providing sections or subsections where people can enter data instead of having to summarize copyrighted material will make it easier for people to contribute. Personally, I don't mind if people enter information based on their personal orchid experience as long as they state they are referencing personal experience and provide their location and/or climate conditions on their user page. As I've mentioned in both forums, a wikipedia for orchids can potentially be a great resource, especially when it's approached on a collective basis. Epiphyte 02:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC) Den lamellatum Please correct the name from Den lamellatumw become Den lamellatum. KG Lam :That is not necessary since it is only a file name --Cs california 20:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)